Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

Showing all content posted in for the last 365 days.

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Thank you for the correction. I haven't read "Philosophy, who needs it?" but I can't can see Rand has an essay called "Causality vs duty" and ive just read sections of it available on the lexicon and it basically explains in more detail what you've said there. I am suggesting if one were to start trying to rationally justify duty, they might start with the fact that we are reproductive beings. I currently do not have the knowledge to get into that and you're best off seeking out the best arguments already out there to justify duty as I will do. My focus in this thread is about the utility of duty. I have never claimed to justify it rationally but I do not dismiss the possibility that it can be justified rationally or morally. I am simply observing the way human beings behave in reality not how they *should* behave based on abstract priciniples. Its almost as if Objectivism is saying "if only humans behaved this way, there wouldn't be any wars, crime, lying, no conflicts of interest no contradictions etc and society would be at peace etc" but the problem is they simply don't think and act that way and they never will. It's like saying "if only humans didn't act like humans". And pointing out an extreme minority that apparently claim to behave that way (Rand declaring she is living proof - a single human being) is hardly indicative of human nature compared to hundreds of millions of humans across times, locations, cultures and races .
  3. StrictlyLogical

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    There is no DUTY to principles. IF you ignore principles which are true and/or follow principles which are false, you will bear the negative consequences in reality of your DOING SO. IF you ignore principles which are false and/or follow principles which are true, you will reap the positive consequences in reality of your DOING SO. Inapplicable. (see above) The subject of value is a separate issue which does not have bearing on the meaning of DUTY, which you still have not explained. So what if one is a "reproductive being"? Pointing out the sheer fact that one has the capability to do something is not tantamount to showing why a person has any duty to do that something... let alone serve as a definition of what "duty" as such IS independent of any particular example of what you purport to be an example of a duty.
  4. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    If one has the opportinity to steal but the likelihood of getting caught is very high and the punishment severe then one can reason the risk outweighs the benefit. In this sense reason has a clear role to play. But the idea that without this deterrent, humans could rely on reason alone to deter themselves is absurd and flies in the face of history. Only a tiny minority could ever live that way. (And it probably wouldn't last). In an objectivist world, if the deterrent has any role to play in why one acts morally, then reason is failing to the extent to which the deterrent is working (certainly reason from Objectivist premises). In the real world, whatever power we do have over our inherent leanings means very little if we don't exercise that power, if we disagree on what is and is not reasonable or if most of us simply don't have the time or interest to ponder what is and is not rational. Instead of relying on reason, social institutions and traditions arise (with duty as a key component) and combine with reason to deal with those inherent leanings as more effective tools than reason alone could ever be. Regarding the population density, it is the least relevant to this thread and I found it confusing. Certainly the weakest argument. I found the sections on the family and human nature especially compelling.(he said "sort of" like the fallacy. The general point stands that it is strange reproduction is missing from the philosophy when it is so interconnected with life). It is worth the read if you do get the time.
  5. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    I suppose the strongest argument would be that it comes from nature as we are reproductive beings. How do you describe the Objectivist duty to pricinples? What exactly is that duty where does it come from etc? Whatever your answer, just add reproduction as a value as well as your own life.
  6. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    I thought that might get picked up. Apologies for being vague. Let's put it this way, human behaviour is seen as far more malleable for Objecivists (and many of the englishtenment thinkers). It stems from a firm belief in the power of reason to overcome human flaws and irrational behaviour. While conservatives also believe we have a great deal of control (individual responsibility is a corner stone of their ideology), they also believe there are significant flaws inherent in human nature that can only be constrained not cured. They place less importance on the power of reason and more importance on the power of incentives to guide human behaviour. Take theft. This is something humans have always done everywhere you look. And often they're perfectly capable of understanding it is wrong. Even more seemingly moral people would steal if they knew they could get away with it. It is said the true test is seeing if someone steals when they know no one is looking. Out of this inherent problem in human nature arose a counter measure: the all-seeing God. If God is watching you all the time, another layer of resistance against theft is achieved. This is is far more powerful than reasoning with someone that stealing is bad. This is just an example, I'm an atheist /agnostic. Of course, Objectivists and the left come to very different conclusions but the fundamental assumption about the power of reason and the malleability of human behaviour opens the door to a multitude of harmful policies. I mentioned the rise of pacifism in the 30s as a direct result of this belief. (Rand was also critical of US entry in WW2). Another example is the focus on criminal rehabilitation over punishment to reduce crime. This topic could warrant a separate thread. I agree there were a multitude of reasons for the fall of the old order pre-1914. I wasn't claiming the blank slate view was the only or most important cause. However, the rejection of tradition (including the Christian tradition of objective morality and emphasis on individual responsibility) and the focus on starting the world over again was significant to say the least. Fascism was a hybrid. It used traditional symbolism as it's face but it piggy backed off of the progressive ideals including building a new world. (Germany was the most progressive country in western world pre-1914 and the largest party was socialist in 1914). Fascism was a reaction to communism but both ideologies were fishing from the same pond. They didn't deny the power of reason. HG Wells, a leading progressive light in the 30s, spoke at Oxford calling for us all to become "enlightened fascists". And Lenin believed he was part of a vanguard elite, an enlightened minority meant to guide the masses. There are many parallels with Objectivsts (who also consider themselves part of an intellectual elite) but they come to different practical conclusions. I agree with your comment about individual rights but the term was just reinvented. They believed in a different kind of rights and claimed they were on the side of morality -"the freedom to" rather than "freedom from". She wrote an essay "roots of war" and I thought she discussed the end of war with Donahue in an interview on YouTube. Maybe I'm misremembering. I agree with a lot of what she says. The problem I have is the basic assumption that reason (or lack of) is at the core of war and that it can be solved through reason. Interestingly, the ARI has taken a different view on interventionism, promoting it in the Middle East. Regarding your last point, fascism is a hybrid (check out the book liberal fascism which points out its progressive origins) so it's entirely possible to not be fascist and not elevate the power of reason. The ideology I'm referring to is conservatism; small state, prudence etc - what fascism isn't.
  7. StrictlyLogical

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    Too bad there wasn't more substance. I would have liked to have heard about what the childhood traumas were, why they occurred, what parents failed to do at those crucial times... and why the journey of transformation of child into adulthood of those people was thwarted in some way... why did it fail and produce so many adult children or partial adults? I'm also a bit circumspect regarding his claims about Narcissism. He may be entirely (more likely partly) correct, but I see something more akin to a simple lack of self-esteem and self-regard, resulting in a mix of self-abnegation and sadism and tyranny toward others. His definition of Narcissism might include way too much... in which case his conclusions about it as a causal factor would have to be disassembled to determine what is and what is not valid.
  8. Doug Morris

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Azrael Rand, I do not think tribalism is genetically based at all. I'm not sure where you got that from. In case I'm misunderstanding what you mean by tribalism, perhaps you should define it. I'm not sure what sort of sociopolitical system you're advocating. I do agree that forced-association laws should be repealed, out of respect for individual rights, and because they can exacerbate conflict between groups. I suspect that black children raised by black parents would be affected, directly and indirectly, more by white racism than black children raised by white parents. For your point about discrimination to hold up, you would have to show that this effect is not important. It is hard to tell what impact a convenience sample has on a study because it's hard to tell just what sort of sample you're getting. There are multiple reasons why people vote as they do. Welfare state policies would tend to appeal to poor people more than to people who are at least reasonably well off. Blacks have poorer economic statistics than whites for reasons which I have already argued are historical, not genetic, so it is not surprising that a greater proportion of blacks than whites are seduced by the welfare state. Also, the proportion of poor whites that vote Democrat is reduced by xenophobia and racism.
  9. Cal Newport considers an interesting productivity analysis from the early days of wide adoption of office software: Will it help him fly, or get him caught on something? (Image via Pixabay.)Deploying a technique called work value analysis, [economist Peter] Sassone measured not only the amount of work conducted by his subjects, but also the skill level required for the work. He found that managers and other skilled professionals were spending surprisingly large percentages of their time working on tasks that could be completed by comparably lower-level employees. He identified several factors that explain this observation, but a major culprit was the rise of "productivity-enhancing" computer systems. This new technology made it possible for managers and professionals to tackle administrative tasks that used to require dedicated support staff. The positive impact of this change was that companies needed less support staff. The negative impact was that it reduced the ability of managers and professionals to spend concentrated time working on the things they did best. [bold added]Newport elaborates on this negative impact and how it applies today. Now, we not only have the problem of less time to do what he calls "deep work," but many things tempt us to break up what time we have left. Deep work requires concentration, the very opposite of the constant state of distraction he warns us against. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. -- CAV Link to Original
  10. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Any biological differences between races is relatively insignificant, as far as behavior. There is more variation between individuals than between groups divided by race, partly because race is defined by perception of other people, not actually genetics. That's why it's easy to attribute cultural differences to biological differences, because it feels more intuitive. As far as I understand, geneticists don't use race, but they use it to the extent that race is a simplified way to discuss the way genes are distributed. I think the term is haplogroup. Haidt is a good psychologist I think by the way. But I don't think he argues for a tribal nature to mankind. Although he thinks people are primarily driven by emotion and use reason to justify their behavior after the fact, tribalism by his theory would result from a set of traits. It's not that we are tribal by nature, but tribalism can easily result from an interaction. Well, self-ownership is something else, not actually anything to do with Objectivism. Individual rights are a different concept.
  11. Nicky

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    If anyone's interested in shifting gears just a bit (because, honestly, enough already with this duty nonsense), here's a take on the disintegration of the concept of family that I stumbled upon by accident, and found interesting. I'll admit, I was looking for all the sex talk in the first 13 minutes of the clip...the relevant conversation, starting at the 13:00 minute mark, which connects the breakdown of family life back in the 60's, 70's and 80's to the current cultural crisis going on in the United Sates, I stumbled upon by accident...and I found it very compelling, figured I'd share: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_SP8wwu0QE
  12. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    My draw towards Objectivism, despite my doctrinal transgressions, is in its premise, a philosophy for man on earth based on acknowledging instead of rejecting objective truths. That's more than enough for me to self-identify as an (Open) Objectivist. I used to be an absolutist individualist but now I'm part individualist. For example I no longer support the Republican party's immigration platform. Before the change it was ok for me because immigration was moral and the current state was partly/mostly immoral; once the immoralities were fixed the problem would have resolved itself so there was no need to restrict immigration. If I'm correct on the natural aspects of tribalism and race and IQ differences then it completely invalidates my previous stance. If not race what metric would you use? I'm in full agreement that a culture of self-ownership is the best thing you could do for your children, on an individual level, in addition to love, care, and nurture. Someone with a higher IQ but a deterministic or nihilistic mindset will not be able to even recognize a fraction of the opportunities that present themselves to him compared to the person with lower IQ and objective mindset. I'm not disputing this at all. What I am challenging is the notion that a culture of self-ownership is enough to mitigate the combination of our tribal nature together with innate biological differences between the races on the aggregate level as it relates to objectively organizing society. Appreciate your input; this is one of the reasons I chose to post on the board because it is frequented by individuals such as yourself. Once I complete my persuasion piece I would appreciate it if you could give it a look to determine whether or not it's grounded in reality. Neither Haidt nor Enos are in any way associated with Objectivism. I stumbled on both of them as a result of trying to "fix" Objectivism for myself. What I like about both of them is that despite the fact that they're leftists they chose not to bury the evidence when confronted with facts that conflict with their ideological bias. What I recommended these two books for is the data presented in them not the authors political beliefs or conclusions. More specifically I recommended them for proof as it relates to the genetic component of tribalism; as in it's not solely a social construct. Other posters, not you though, alluded to tribalism as a social construct so I posted these two authors in response. Unlike Haidt, I don't think Eno's changed his viewpoint at all after digesting the data. Although he never really comes out and says it, I think he would favor government intervention into communities to enforce or at least "incentivize" complete racial integration of communities. He is a leftist through and through so I agree with you that his view of government is mistaken acknowledging the fact that the two of us aren't in full agreement on how government ought to operate. One of Enos main points is that incorrectly managed diversity leads to decreased levels of trust, civility and voluntary civic engagement required for maintaining what we consider to be a modern society. If tribalism is genetic, and I think you agree that it is (at least to some extent), then would it not be in our rational self-interest to organize in a way that enhances outcomes? So we're either looking at a society that is ethnically homogeneous or diverse where said diversity is objectively managed to maximize outcomes as suggested by Enos. One of these two can be accomplished by re-instating freedom of association (creating ethnically homogeneous areas by choice; currently illegal) the other likely not based on our innate tribal nature. Then, if we accept IQ differences between races, it becomes apparent that there would be additional differences between these two alternatives. So if we choose objectively managed diversity we likely have to accept state intervention into the way communities are organized and we'd have to settle for a lower cultural and material standard considering the lowest common denominator. This obviously isn't a fun topic but that's the reality I'm seeing from my point of view. This is why I didn't claim it as 100% proof but as a good starting point. For additional material I'd recommend checking out Stefan Molyneux's content on race and IQ on his Youtube channel. Although he is no longer an Objectivist he does a pretty good job at presenting evidence in a fair and straight forward fashion (unless he's talking about UPB or any of his other books) and he includes appropriate references for his presentations. To address the quotes from Wikipedia: On racial discrimination: Yes if black children are being raised by whites they would still expect to face discrimination by whites, in addition they would also reasonably expect to face it from blacks because they are being raised by white parents if there were any blacks in their school / social environment. So if social discrimination were an influential factor in IQ formation you'd expect the IQ of blacks raised by whites to be lower all things equal; not the other way around. The measured IQ for adopted black youths was in line with the average black IQ in America so I would assume that discrimination in and of itself does not directly impact IQ. On history and placement differences of adopted children with two black biological parents: The adult IQ of 89 listed is in line with the average IQ for African Americans in the US. A case can be made that what counted was the earlier years not spent with the adoptive white parents. Note however that this limitation only mentions children with two black parents. It did not address children with one black and one white parent which at age 17 scored at 99 compared to 106 for the adopted average white child and 89 for the adopted average black child. Convenience sample: Yes it's not a random sample but they did measure the IQ of the adoptive parents. How do you envisions this to have a potential impact on the study? That's a true statement. However the flip side is also true that you haven't proven your case either (which would have automatically disproven mine). Just because a majority of people believe something to be true doesn't give it a leg up in a scientific debate. As long as there's a way for emotion to attach itself to a belief, people can and will hold a belief to support their emotional well being. The popularity of religion shouldn't be considered a factor in trying to determine whether or not god exists. That's certainly one theory. I personally think it's more realistic to assume that it's due to the financial incentives created by the well-fare state, that require a continued Democrat electoral presence to stay in place. Nicky, since you appear to have a fetish that involves me using Google I felt obliged to comply. Not the biggest fan of Wikipedia but it's good enough to communicate what I thought to be common knowledge on this message board. Please enjoy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_movement I don't think its contestable that lower IQ makes people more susceptible to being scammed all things being equal; let me know if you think that's incorrect. Can there be other factors at play, such as people taking advantage of someone's emotional investment in a specific belief, absolutely, but it shouldn't in any way detract from, all things equal, differences in IQ making someone more susceptible to being taking advantage of. As far as individual variations being more important, I agree with this statement assuming we're comparing individual outcomes and that the people involved don't suffer from low IQ or retardation. However I don't believe this statement to be true on a societal level based on our tribal nature and potential IQ differences between races. While I can't conclusively prove that I'm correct I don't think you can conclusively prove your case either. The best we can do is present the best argument we can given the facts at our disposal while trying to account for emotional biases which I think both of us have been doing thus far. "Ought to" or "ought not to" doesn't automatically equate to "is" or "isn't." See my previous quote from Wikipedia. Sorry pal.
  13. Yesterday
  14. . Perhaps compatible with that. I'll keep it in mind. Anyone who can read Galt's Speech or Rand's later non-fiction writing will be able to read my book with benefit and enjoy the gripping relentless intellectual roller coaster. Technical terms are always explained in notes, technical ramifications for modern logic and so forth are consigned to notes, and all special new philosophic terms or new constrained senses of old philosophic terms are explained along the way in the main-body text.
  15. StrictlyLogical

    Intimations of My Philosophy Book

    I'll broadly conclude that your work is compatible with the idea that physical systems (QM, or conscious, or neither) can exhibit one-to-many causal type linkages, and that physical systems, even if identical in their entirety, (hypothetically) do not necessarily evolve identically. I suppose I merely thought QM and free will were exemplars, or at least the most obviously discernible, examples of this. I am curious to read what you have to say about this subject... although I am afraid I will not have the philosophical background necessary to understand your book when finally complete. I wish you well in your writings.
  16. SL, There is an excellent chapter “Potentiality in Physics” by Max Kistler in the HANDBOOK. He sorts out what is and is not an occasion of metaphysical potentiality in the various modern physics concepts, classical and modern, going under such names as potentials and capacities. He discusses Heisenberg’s potentia interpretation of QM and sets out his own realist interpretation of QM enlisting metaphysical potentiality. I expect that to result in an endnote in my book, but that area will not fit into my book. I would mention to you, however, that the contingencies of human brain processing and the freedom of higher volitional neuronal control systems from external stimuli and history requires from physics and chemistry only processes in the regular classical regimes. It may in fact also enlist chaotic classical processes, but it surely does not enlist any quantum indeterminacies for its contingent nature and indeterminism, for the time scales of quantum transitions are far too short for the transitions in neuronal processes, including whole-brain molar processing. I have discussed those things in earlier works and will not be taking them up in this book. Suffice to say, I’m closer to Peirce and to Aristotle on contingency/necessity in nature and in human nature than to Rand and Leibniz. The picture of a classical-physics deterministic causal stream writ large to the complex of independent causal streams of nature (inanimate or animate) is simply false, notwithstanding the grip it got in the head of Spinoza, of Laplace, and of many intellectuals to this day. I’ve written about those things in my OBJECTIVITY essays (1990-98) “Induction on Identity” and “Volitional Synapses” and in the “Reply to Eilon.” It is old stuff to me and is for some years now available online here. Virtually everything in my book has never been seen before among my writings.
  17. StrictlyLogical

    Intimations of My Philosophy Book

    Are free-will and QM very big players of the potential versus actual division in your formulation, since a purely classical and determinist universe would only present a trivial "single path" preordained future actuality (potential) for the current and all past actualities?
  18. . “Being is variously divided.” –Aquinas In her metaphysics, Ayn Rand had four exhaustive ways of dividing Existence. Three of the partitions are altered and then put to work in my own metaphysics that will be lain out in my book in progress. So, putting it schematically, where Rand had Partition I as A/B, I have it as A/L; her Partition II as C/D/E/F, I have as C´/M/N/O/P; her Partition III as G/H, I have as G/Q. What those three exhaustive ways of partition were in Rand’s view I’ll leave to those who want to think-Rand on it for themselves, else find in by book when it is finished and is published. Rand’s fourth partition is between the actual and the potential. I do not alter this one in my own system, although I greatly elaborate on the actual/potential relation and their relations to the possible. And this fourth partition is integrated with my other three. Rand did not write or talk much about the actual/potential distinction. She talked about it in biological application in an essay about abortion. She discussed it head-on for general metaphysics with George Walsh, Leonard Peikoff, and Allan Gotthelf in an oral seminar-exchange around 1970. That discussion is transcribed in the Appendix of ITOE on pages 282–88. The actual/potential partition comes up in the Nathaniel Branden lectures “The Basic Principles of Objectivism” as transcribed on pages 72–79, 97 of THE VISION OF AYN RAND. It is addressed also in Peikoff’s OPAR on pages 163–71. See also endnote 57 of Jason Rheins’ “Objectivist Metaphysics” in the Blackwell COMPANION TO AYN RAND. One book I’ve found helpful in tracing the rise, the variations, and the fall of the actual/potential partition in the history of philosophy, as well as occurrences of the actual/potential distinction in contemporary science is HANDBOOK OF POTENTIALITY (Engeland and Quante, editors, 2018). Others I’m learning a great deal from (in addition to Aristotle and Aquinas) are: POTENTIALITY (Vetter 2015), MERE POSSIBILITIES (Stalnaker 2012), MODALITY & EXPLANATORY REASONING (Kment 2014), EPISTEMIC MODALITY (Egan and Weatherson, editors, 2011), MODAL LOGIC AS METAPHYSICS (Williamson 2013), ARISTOTLE’S MODAL SYLLOGISTIC (Malink 2013). .
  19. Eiuol

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    No, that's not what Rand means. She doesn't mean no innate tendencies. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by innate tendencies, but the only types of innate tendencies she really opposes are claims like "it is human nature to feel a duty to family". While much behavior and patterns of history are described in terms of how control over one's destiny and future as well as control over political and ethical motivations, that isn't to say there are no innate tendencies whatsoever. It's more that whatever innate tendencies we might have, we have a great deal of control and how to guide our own behavior. There may be overlap with early progressivism, but early progressivism had no emphasis on individual rights. Neither did any of the more radical ideologies that developed. Communism to a great deal denies that we have the capacity and ability to choose our own future because it is so materialistic, and Fascism especially emphasizes duty to family and atavistic ideals as human nature rather than relating these values to reason. Although Communists tend to think innate knowledge wasn't a thing, many certainly believed in innate motivations and desires. In a way you could say Communism focuses on nurture, but it denies that you have much of if any control over it due to the innate tendencies that exist. At the very least, Fascism puts virtually all emphasis on nature. The main thing in common between these two is denying the power of reason. Rand never discussed the end of wars. Besides, I think you've missed how individual rights are the main emphasis here. It's not that overemphasis on reason left a black hole of power in Europe. It's that the disregard for individual rights made things worse. It's like you're saying we should avoid the emphasis on reason so that we don't end up like progressives, and instead be more like Fascists. But then also not be Fascists.
  20. StrictlyLogical

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    JH What do you mean by the term "duty"? Is it a feeling you have, or perhaps share with others, maybe some group, the majority, or perhaps a feelings other people had in history, whether famous or not..? Is it something like an idea residing in another plane of existence, which you can access as a revelation, using only your supernatural "senses" perhaps even a specific "sense of duty"? Is that other realm the world of forms or God or something else? Is it something in reality, which a man responds to in order to achieve an outcome? What outcome? Why does any man choose that outcome? What exactly do you mean by Duty?
  21. Doug Morris

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    I don't have time to read the whole biological critique linked to by Jason Hunter, but I read his post and the conclusions of the critique. A few points. There may be hormonal or other promptings toward certain actions, but we have the power to overrule these promptings by reason. The key to successful living in high-density societies is respect for individual rights. To the extent that this is not practiced, it creates conflict and becomes more and more destructive as time passes. To the extent that it is practiced, it creates a workable society which is in everyone's interest. It is an example of the stolen concept fallacy to question one's own existence. It is not a fallacy to question whether the people who brought one into existence should have done so.
  22. Craig24

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    It's still not a duty. If you believe it is and choose accordingly you are just wrong.
  23. Craig24

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    No. It's ONLY a philosophy and NOT a movement. No philosophy is a movement. A movement to promote the philosophy isn't itself the philosophy. This distinction needs to be understood.
  24. Jason Hunter

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    @[email protected] MorrisIn your last replies, both of you have hit on the fundamental disagreement at play here. It is a disagreement about human nature. One of Rand's basic assumptions about human nature is that we are born Tabula rasa. This doesn't just mean we are born without knowledge but also without any innate tendencies. Man may be limited by nature in a physical sense but in terms of his character, attitudes and behaviour etc, man's mind is free reign. If you hold this blank slate view of man, all emphasis is on nurture rather than nature. It means you place far greater significance on the influence of competing ideologies to explain past human behaviour rather than particular ideologies, practices, traditions etc resulting out of man's attempt to deal with human nature as it is. In this sense, Objectivism shares a fundamental root with the left wing. This view of man flourished in the age of the enlightenment and led to great optimism about the potential of mankind. Man could mold society to his will, end poverty and war and accomplish it all through the power of reason. Paine's famous line encapsulates the movement: "we have it in our power to begin the world over again". This view of human nature set the stage for the horrors of the 20th century. It was central to the progressive era, and the rise of Communism and Fascism. While a conservative might argue that the long history of conflict and war indicates an inherent tendency in man, Rand would argue they had their premises wrong. That war is the result of collectivism and individualism is the cure. In other words, war can end through reason. The left tend to agree. This view dominated in the 1930s causing the rise of pacifism and disarmament in the west allowing the rise of Hitler. @intrinsicistalso hits on some important points regarding this. Because Objectivism relies on the is implies ought logic, a different view of human nature would cause drastic changes to the philosophy. The facts about human nature and the nurture/nature argument isn't settled and yet Objectivism is so reliant on it. What if reproduction was included in Rand's definition of life? This critique linked by Boydstun in another thread hits on these issues and is highly relevant to this thread. Objectivist Ethics: A Biological Critique  Regarding duty, it cannot be based purely on value calculation. It has to exist outside of it, at least partly. For example, we all have a pre-existing duty to our family up to a certain extreme value calculation. That would be the conservative view.
  25. StrictlyLogical

    Freedom of speech (books)

    This is a very good read by Tara Smith on Free Speech as such (unrelated to an organization) "The Free Speech Vernacular: Conceptual Confusions in the Way We Speak About Speech" link is here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3166234 I think there are very large differences between considerations of how best to make an organization run versus how best to set up a moral society with a proper government. One uniquely involves the use of force (government monopoly) while the other is simply a voluntary relationship... which by definition, if no force is involved speech is always free, although it might not guarantee employment or promotion...
  26. Boydstun

    Freedom of speech (books)

    Welcome to OBJECTIVISM ONLINE, Terry Lewis. In addition to what is in the links you provided, a very informative history of American law in this area is The Emergence of a Free Press by Leonard Levy. That concerns freedom of ordinary citizens to express ideas, particularly ones critical of the government or governmental officials. The restrictions abridging such political freedom, in the British and American history, of concern in this book are government force, such as torture and execution, law of libel, and shutdown of printing outfits. In business firms, the stick is of a different genre, such as being fired. My own impression with business firms is that speech or other expression that distracts or detracts from the ultimate product or service of the firm is suppressed best it can be. That makes sense. In closed doors, of course, policies and projects are debated by the appropriate managers of the firm. There is a nasty little thing in this area that can go on in firms. In large firms, there can be 'soft' training of employees that can include collections of employees guided in discussions that include any sort of criticism or suggestions. These can be scams in which the information the firm is really interested in is further insight into which employees are problematic. (I'm sorry to say, but one of the saddest things I encountered in business were employees that could care less that we were producing or what we were producing or how well. They took no joy in that or in the brotherhood of coworkers dedicated to the productive purposes.) The interests of the firm are pervasive in its operations, but, of course, there is always 'politics' there, with the small p, as individuals and groups jockey for personal advantage and for vision and character of the firm.
  27. Doug Morris

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Azrael Rand, Even if there is a genetic component in a statistical difference between the races in vulnerability to scams, which you have not proven, this would not determine which scam(s) a person would fall victim to. Also, whatever difference there might be between the races in vulnerability to scams (probably due to differing histories if it exists), individual variation is more important.
  1. Load more activity
×